Pari-mutuel game

ABSTRACT

The present invention is directed to a pari-mutuel contest in general and a pari-mutuel contest which requires participants to place wagers on a grouping of contestants which have been segregated into subsets from a field of contestants. The segregation is based on a predetermined criteria. The participants are required to select a predetermined quantity of contestants from each respective grouping with the totality of the contestants performance aggregated to determine a participants score. Winnings are calculated on a pari-mutual bases based on the respective scores.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention is directed to a pari-mutuel game in general andmore particularly to a pari-mutuel game wherein participants make wagersbased on the performance of selected individual contestants engaged in acontest who have been grouped into subsets from a field of contestantsand pre-ranked according to a predetermined criteria.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

A variety of games are available for individuals to place wagers andcompete against others. One format of games include casino type gameswherein an individual places a particular wager hoping to beat othercontestants or the house with a winner take all format. Other gamesinclude the placement of wagers on events involving sporting contests.For such wagers involving sporting contests, calculated fixed odds arecommonly used. The fixed odds may be established by the “house” as anindication of the popularity of a given contestant in comparison withothers in the contest or by dividing the amount wagered on a givenparticipant into the total amount wagered. Such a format is representedby the wagering conducted for horse racing or on various sporting eventssuch as football. While fixed odds serve their purpose in enticingparticipants to wager across an entire field of contestants, typicallyfavorites receive the majority of the wagers. Alternative wagering gamesinclude pari-mutual contests wherein the amount of wagers are pooled andthe winning wagers are paid out from the pool less the amount deductedby the organizing institution and state law. Pari-mutuel betting differsfrom fixed odds betting in that the final payout is not determined untilthe pool is closed—in fixed odds betting, the payout is agreed at thetime the bet is sold. A drawback with odds based games is that typicallya contestant exists who is the predominate favorite and it's the oddsitself which intrigues a person to wager on a contestant other than thefavorite.

Another attempt to facilitate wagering in a contest when one contestantis clearly a stronger competitor involves the inclusion of a handicap onthe favorite such as a point spread. A point spread attempts to make thetwo teams appear even so that wagers will be evenly dispersed betweenthem. The point spread doesn't effect the perception that a particularteam won't win the event, just that the victory of margin will be lessthan a perceived range. Both point spreads and odds attempt to make anunderdog intriguing enough to place a wager on.

While the prior games are conducted to place interest in allparticipants, nonetheless, it is customarily the case wherein only aselect few of the contestants realistically have a chance of winning thecontest. Hence the drama in the event is limited to the hopes that anunderdog may prevail.

Other wagering formats have been established to include the aggregationof multiple contestants to form a wager. For instance, a common wageringscheme in horse racing includes exactas and trifectas. Exactas requirethat the first and second place finishers be correctly determined and atrifecta wager requires that the first, second and third place finishersbe correctly determined. This creates a wider range of intrigue as thesuccess of more contestants is required to ultimately win the wager.

Accordingly, to inspire excitement for the performance of allparticipants, the results of more than a few participants should beconsidered in a wagering game.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide awagering game which incorporates the performance of various contestantsthereby facilitating interest in the totality of participants and theirrespective performance.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention contemplates a novel and improved method ofconducting a game utilizing a pari-mutuel wagering format. The gameincorporate a computer having a database which includes a roster ofcontestants. From this roster the contestants are grouped into at leasttwo groups based upon a predetermined criteria. Once the contestants aregrouped, selections from a plurality of gaming participants of at leastone contestant from each group are received. These selections form anentry of the game. Once an entry is created, a wager associated with theentry is received. Upon completion of the contest, a received wager isevaluated based upon a predetermined criteria to determine if it is awinning wager.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 exhibits a flow chart illustrating an example method of thepresent invention.

FIG. 2 illustrates a schematic of a wagering game according to thepresent invention.

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a wagering ticket according to thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Referring now in more detail to the drawings, as shown in FIGS. 1-2, amethod and system for a pari-mutuel game A is disclosed. This systemincludes a database 10 containing a plurality of contestant records 12identifying contestants competing in a contest. The contestants areranked prior to the contest based upon a predetermined criteria at step14. The method of ranking may be based on some criteria which identifiescontestants as favorites in winning a particular contest. Once thecontestants are ranked, the contestants are subsequently grouped intodifferent tiers based on their rankings. Preferably the number ofcontestants is sufficient for at least two distinct groups. As shown instep 16 the contestants have been ranked and placed into multiple groups“A”, “B”, and “C”. From these groupings participants make selections ofat least one contestant from each group forming a team entry for thepari-mutuel game. As shown in steps 20, 22 and 24, multiple contestantshave been ranked and designated as Group “A”, Group “B”, and Group “C”.As shown in Step 26, a team is created by a participant whereinindividual contestants from the respective Groups are selected. In thisparticular arrangement, the game requires that multiple contestants fromGroup “C” be selected. Once a team is selected the participant enters awager at Step 28. The wager will be included in the pari-mutuel pooldesignating what percentage of the pool the participant's entrycomprises. As shown in Step 30 the completed team and wager is submittedas the participant's entry into the wagering game. At Step 32 thesubmitted entry is received at the central processing facility andevaluated for validity. If the entry is deemed valid then the entry andwager is accepted.

At a predetermined time prior to the initiation of the contest the entryof wagers are terminated. Once the wagers have been entered and thecontest has been completed the entries are evaluated according to apredetermined criteria. In one embodiment as shown at Step 34 theevaluation criteria is based on the final ranking of the contestants asthey finished in the particular contest. The entries are tabulated basedon the evaluation criteria at Step 36 to determine winning entries. AtStep 38 the winning entries and their associated wagers are utilized fordetermining the respective payouts for the winning entries. As apari-mutuel contest the payout is based on the totality of the wagerentries less a commission to the house.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a system incorporating theinvention. One embodiment includes the provision of a lottery type gameutilizing the invention. This system utilizes self-service kiosk 50 andassisted terminal 52. In this system both kiosk 50 and assisted terminal52 may utilize an interactive video display 54 for receiving entries andwagers or they may utilize manual systems 56 utilizing cards which arefilled out to identify the participant's respective selections and whichare positioned through a card reader for deciphering the selection.Other variations of entry input systems known in the art may also beutilized.

Both kiosk 50 and assisted terminal 52 include associated administrativeprograms 58 for administrating the wagering game. Both kiosk 50 andassisted terminal 52 are connected via a network interface 59 to anetwork and ultimately to a central host B. In some embodiments, remotecomputers may access central host B via the interne.

Central host B includes associated administrative programs 60 foradministering the wagering game with the affiliated remote entry inputdevices. Central host B preferably interfaces with a plurality ofdatabases utilized in the wagering game. One such database includes thedatabase of initial contestants 10 containing contestants initiallyscheduled for involvement in the respective contest. Initial contestantsdatabase 10 may be modified to create a second database 62 identifyingcontestants who are eligible for being utilized in creating a teamentry. For example, if the contest being considered consists of a horseracing event certain horses may initially be designated forparticipation in the event and consequently available for inclusion intoa team entry. However, as the race draws closer, a particular horse maybe scratched and consequently become ineligible for being included as acontestant in a team entry. An additional scenario arises when thecontest may include athletes playing in a professional sport. Forinstance, should the contest include athletes performing in professionalfootball games, it is common throughout the season to have games playedat various days during the week. Accordingly, if a team entry wascreated utilizing players who were participating in a Thursday gameprior to the Thursday game, then those players would be eligible forinclusion in a team entry. However, if a team entry was created on aSaturday, prior to the respective Saturday and Sunday professionalfootball games being played, then those professional football playerswho had participated in a game prior to the Saturday would not beeligible for inclusion in a team entry. Accordingly, there are timeswhen the contestants contained in the eligible contestants database isdifferent than those originally identified in the database ofcontestants.

Once the contestants have been identified they are ranked and groupedbased on these rankings. The ranking of the contestants may be doneunder several different schemes. For instance, the contestants may beranked based upon their respective odds of winning the event prior tothe initiation of the event and groupings of contestants are based onthese odds. Alternatively, the contestants may be ranked based on aseeding, and the contestants are grouped into at least two groupsdepending on their respective seeding. Furthermore, the contestants maybe ranked based on a pre-contest qualification event such as apre-qualifying race if the contest involves a racing event.

The grouping of contestants is achieved via affiliated programming. Thegrouping may be done based on various formats. In one embodiment, thecontestants are grouped in different tiers wherein a select number ofparticipants form the respective groups such as a Group “A” whichincludes a certain number of favorites. Additional groups are formeddepending on the size of the team to be completed. In an embodimentwhich utilizes contestants not competing head to head, for instance in afantasy sports arrangement, certain premier players in differentpositions may be grouped into different groups. For instance, the toprated quarterback and top rated running back may both be groupedtogether in a Group “A” and other contestants likewise grouped in Groups“B”, “C”, etc. In such an arrangement, a team entry would consist of ateam comprising a quarterback, running back, wide receiver, and thelike, however the contestants would be grouped in various groupings suchthat a contest allowing only one Group “A” contestant and one Group “B”contestant might require a participant to decide if a Group “A”quarterback and a Group “B” running back were more desirable than aGroup “A” running back and Group “B” quarterback. Multiple variations ofthis theme would be available via the various grouping techniques.

The various Groupings of contestants are provided to the remoteterminals via the administrative programs and network. The participantmakes a selection of a particular contestant located in a particulargrouping. The rationale for the grouping is to require selection ofcontestants from multiple groups. This method utilizes the performanceof multiple contestants including those who, while participating in thecontest, aren't perceived as being likely to win the event. However, byrequiring a wager to consist of a team which includes contestants notconsidered favorites, interest in the performance of the entire field ofcontestants is created. Thus, while multiple participants may select theperceived “favorite” as a member of their team, the participants arealso required to wager on the performance of contestants who areperceived as less likely to be successful in the contest and mustevaluate a grouping of such contestants wherein the relative performanceof these contestants are also applicable to determining a winning entry.This expansion of applicable performances renders a participant to be asknowledgeable about the idiosyncrasies of the lesser perceivedcontestants as much as the favorites.

For instance, to increase the variability of winning wagers, thegrouping of contestants may be done such that various groupings includemore contestants than other groups. It is perceived that manyparticipants will select a favorite contestant, consequently thefavorites may consist of a first grouping which has a limited number ofcontestants. The remainder of the field may be further divided intomultiple groupings having an irregular number of contestants. A teamentry may require that the team consists of a majority of contestantsselected from one of the groupings of lower ranked contestants and onlyallow a single entry from the favorites. Further expansion of theselection of contestants may require that the selection of contestantsinclude a selection of multiple contestants from at least one of thecategories. For instance, to increase the range of variability somegroups may consist of more participants than other groups.

In one example the contest includes a plurality of contestants who arecompeting head to head and wherein each contestant's performance,including those contestants who do not win the competition, are utilizedfor determining if a received wager is a winning wager. Prior to thecontest the contestants are ranked utilizing a predetermined criteriaand are grouped into at least two distinct groups based upon therankings. Based on these groupings, participants select at least onecontestant from a first group and a second contestant from a secondgroup forming a team. The winning wager is determined based upon theperformance of the team which is made up of the selected contestantswhich may or may not include the overall contest winner.

Once a team entry is created and an appropriate wager made, the entry isinputted by the respective entry terminal and received at the CentralHost B and stored in the received entries and wagers database 64.

Once the contest has been performed the results are stored in a contestresults database 66. The contestants may be afforded points based upontheir final position in the contest. For instance, in a head to headcompetition the contestants may be afforded a point value based upontheir final position in the head to head competition. As the contestantsare awarded points, the respective team of contestants selected by theparticipant has their respective point totals aggregated to provide atotal point value for the respective entry. Hence, each entry receives apoint total based upon their selected contestants. The respective pointtotals of each received entry is evaluated for determining those entrieswith the point value which meet the winning criteria when compared tothe other entries. The comparison of the entries and contest results areachieved via the programs affiliated with the determine winning entriesand payouts area 70 of Central host B.

One method of conducting a pari-mutual game of the invention involveshead to head competition including those competitions involvingindividuals or teams. In this arrangement the final position of anindividual or team may be utilized in determining points attributable tothe respective contestant. This scenario would include a racing eventinvolving motor sports or animal or other sport teams. Another gameincludes contestants participating in the same sport but in differentevents at different locations. Such a format includes a tournamentformat where the overall performance of a team at the end of thetournament is utilized for determining winning entries. An additionalgame includes evaluating contestants based on performancecharacteristics not related to the outcome of the contest. Such anarrangement includes fantasy sports type arrangements wherein athletesparticipating in team events acquire points based on their respectiveperformances.

In addition to obtaining points based on the final ranking of thecontestants, additional bonus points may be awarded based on certainpredetermined characteristics relating to the contest. For instance, ina racing event points may be added to a contestant for laps lead duringthe race. Such points are combined with the point value attributed tothe contestant based upon their final position in the head to headcontest for determining an overall point total for a respectivecontestant with respect to their performance in the contest and whereinthe overall point total is combined for each selected contestant fordetermining a winning wager.

Another embodiment includes a method of conducting a pari-mutuel gamewherein the contestants are teams participating in a tournament andwherein the teams are seeded according to a predetermined criteria. Theteams are grouped into at least two distinct groups based upon theseeding such that gaming participants select at least one team from afirst group and a second contestant from a second group and wherein awinning wager is determined based upon the performance of the selectedteams within said tournament.

One particular wagering game involving contestants involved on differentteams which play at different times is as follows: Initially a period oftime is established wherein wagers may be placed exists. The period oftime expiring for a particular contestant being prior to the start oftheir contest which they are participating. Accordingly if the contestincludes players in multiple games, those players who have previouslyplayed will be unavailable for selection. A database having a roster ofcontestants is provided, the contestants being grouped according to apredetermined criteria. A selection mechanism is provided enablingparticipants to select contestants initially slated for competing in thecontests. The selection of at least one contestant from at least twoseparate groups is required forming a selected team. The eligibility ofthe team selected by the participant is verified to determine if theselected contestants are participating in the contest by utilizing thedatabase and checking the status of the selected contestants eligibilityfor participation in the contest. A participant is alerted if the teamselected is an invalid selection if it is determined that a selectedcontestant is not eligible for participating in the contest.Alternatively, the participants are provided an opportunity to place awager on the selected team if the selected team consists solely ofeligible players. The wagers are received to form a pool of wagers. Aportion of the wagers is allocating to an operator of the game and theremainder of the pool is allocated as a common pari-mutuel payout forpayout of winning wagers. Once the contest has occurred the teams areranked upon the performance of the selected contestants and winningwagers are determined based upon the rankings of the teams. A payout foreach winning wager is determined based upon the rankings.

The following is an example when the contestants are comprised ofprofessional auto drivers, either NASCAR® or Formula 1. The participantwill select 5 eligible contestants, drivers, from a predetermined listof contestants, drivers, to create a “team” of their choosing. Theparticipant will select a wager amount of $5, $10, $20, $50, or $100which will determine the shares they are eligible to win should theyhave a team with a top five (5) point total. The first driver(CONTESTANT A) the customer chooses will be from a list of the top 9drivers in the respective auto racing standings as of that date, or thedrivers may be grouped according to their respective pole position. Thislist will be referred to the ‘Group A.’ The second driver (CONTESTANTB1), third driver (CONTESTANT B2), and the fourth driver (CONTESTANT B3)will be selected from a list of drivers who are ranked 10^(th) through34^(th) (25 drivers) in the respective auto racing standings oraccording to their respective pole position. This list will be referredto as the ‘Group B.’ The fifth driver (CONTESTANT C) will be selectedfrom a list of drivers who are ranked 35^(th) and higher (10+ drivers)in the national professional auto racing standings. This list will bereferred to as the ‘Group C.’ The driver rankings will be included inthe Driver Roster provided after each week's race results are final.After the completion of each week's race, the customer's drivers willeach be awarded points based on their results in the race, as well asbonus points awarded for their driver's laps lead and if one of theirdrivers lead the most laps. Each team member's points will be combinedalong with additional bonus points for guessing the correct number ofcautions in the race to determine the total team points awarded to thecustomer's ticket. The three (3) tickets with the most points at the endof each race week will determine which tickets will win the pari-mutuelprizes. Their shares ($5 per share) of the pari-mutual prize will bedetermined by the wager of the winning ticket. The customer can playthis game using a play slip where they select their 5 drivers, or select‘QP’ (Quick Pick) to have the terminal select 5 eligible drivers fromthe driver roster. The Driver Roster will be updated after each week'srace and uploaded into database through a BOS upload utility. As driversare deemed ineligible due to suspension, injury, or inability to qualifyfor a given race, these drivers would be eliminated from the list andnot eligible for quick pick or play slip wagering. As driver's rankingswill also change after each week's race those changes will also bereflected on this updated Roster. Once uploaded into the database theDriver Roster will be used to create an eligible drivers list availablethrough the terminal as a report. When the list is printed it will listall the eligible drivers and their corresponding car numbers. The listwill be divided into three parts, Group A, Group B, and Group C; eachpart separating drivers according to their current rankings into theappropriate List (Group A=current top 9 drivers, Group B=currentlyranked 10^(th) through 34^(th), Group C=35^(th) ranked and higher.) Eachcustomer's ticket consists of 5 drivers and one number representing thenumber of caution flags predicted (6 total selections for the wager).The first five selections are three-digit numbers of the customer'sdesired drivers (Range: 000-199). The sixth selection is a two digitnumber only indicating the number of cautions the customer believes willbe called for the week's race (Range: 00-49). If errors are made on theplay slip filling in the selections the terminal will display specificerror messages for each type of error. FIG. 3 provides an example of aplay slip. In some arrangements, a play slip may be produced under a“quick pick” arrangement. In this arrangement contestants who haveparticipated in contests earlier in the week may be included in thefinal team roster of players. Once a contest has occurred, wagering forthe next race will remain closed until the next Driver Roster can beuploaded.

All players buy into a single pool in one embodiment $5=1 share into thepool. The participant with the most points for their team wins the topprize (50% of 74% of total sales). The customer with the second highestamount of points for their team will win the second prize (30% of the74% of total sales). The customer with the third highest amount ofpoints for their team will win the third prize (20% of the 74% of totalsales). If more than one ticket has equal points (a tie) and they havewon one of the top three prizes the prize payout will be pari-mutuel.The number of shares each customer has determines the percentage oftheir win of that prize. Depending on what position a driver finishesdetermines how many points that driver scores. Penalty points will notbe counted toward a driver's total points for the week because penaltypoints are more a deduction to a driver's total season points as opposedto a specific race's points.

A ‘Caution’ is defined as the initial yellow flag displayed to race-cardrivers to indicate a slow down. Also used to indicate no passing, dueto a problem or mishap on the race track, or weather related issue. If ayellow flag lasts for more than one (1) lap, it is counted as one (1)caution. In the event that a driver is in a collision, or does notfinish a race that he/she has started, they are still placed in thestandings for the race; hence, they receive points for the race.

This is merely one example of a wagering game which may be had accordingto the invention. Additional contests may be utilized as the subtext forthe wagering game. In certain non head to head competition teams in atournament like the NCAA basketball championship may be grouped invarious groups prior to the initiation of the tournament with the finalranking based on the overall performance of the selected teams. Suchgrouping would include all tournament teams and an example of thegrouping may include teams ranked first and second as one group, teamsranked third through sixth another group, and other variations ofgroupings of the additional teams. In this manner the performance ofteams in a lower grouping will also be relevant in totaling the entireentry.

1: A system for conducting a pari-mutuel game for a contest comprising:a computer having a database containing a plurality of contestantsgreater than three who are competing in a contest which ultimately has asingle contest winner; said contestants being grouped into at least twogroups based upon a predetermined criteria; a game entry identifyingselections from a plurality of gaming participants of at least onecontestant from each group forming an entry of said pari-mutuel game;said computer receiving information identified by said game entry; andsaid computer determining if a received game entry is a winning entrybased upon a predetermined criteria.
 2. A system of conducting apari-mutuel game according to claim 1 wherein said contest includes aplurality of contestants who are competing head to head and wherein eachcontestants performance, including those contestants who do not win thecompetition, are utilized for determining if a received wager is awinning wager and wherein said contestants are ranked utilizing apredetermined criteria prior to the contest and wherein said contestantsare grouped into at least two distinct groups based upon said rankingsuch that gaming participants select at least one contestant from afirst group and a second contestant from a second group and wherein awinning wager is determined based upon the performance of said selectedcontestants.
 3. A system of conducting a pari-mutuel game according toclaim 2 wherein said contestants are ranked based upon their respectiveodds of winning prior to the initiation of a contest.
 4. A system ofconducting a pari-mutuel game according to claim 2 wherein saidcontestants are ranked based on a seeding, and wherein said contestantsare grouped into at least two groups depending on their respectiveseeding.
 5. A system of conducting a pari-mutuel game according to claim2 wherein said contestants are ranked based on a pre-contestqualification event.
 6. A system of conducting a pari-mutuel gameaccording to claim 2 wherein each grouping of contestants include aplurality of contestants and wherein said selection consists of multiplecontestants from at least one of the categories.
 7. A system ofconducting a pari-mutuel game according to claim 2 wherein thecontestants are afforded a point value based upon their final positionin a head to head competition and wherein the respective selectedcontestants point value are aggregated to provide a total point valuefor the respective entry and wherein the received entries are evaluatedfor determining those entries with the point value which meet thewinning criteria when compared to the other entries.
 8. A system ofconducting a pari-mutual game according to claim 2 wherein said head tohead competition includes performance related statistics not related tothe final position, and wherein said performance related statistics areevaluated based upon a predetermined criteria and wherein points areattributed to contestants who performance related statistics meet saidpredetermined criteria and wherein said points based upon performancerelated statistics are combined with the point value attributed to thecontestant based upon their final position in the head to head contestfor determining an overall point total for a respective contestant withrespect to their performance in the contest and wherein said overallpoint total is combined for each selected contestant for determining awinning wager.
 9. A system of conducting a pari-mutuel game according toclaim 2 wherein said contestants are awarded points based upon theirfinal position within the head to head competition and additional pointsbased on a predetermined criteria relating to performancecharacteristics related to the contest.
 10. A system of conducting apari-mutuel game according to claim 1 wherein the contestants areafforded a point value based upon their final position at the conclusionof a contest and wherein the respective selected contestants point valueare aggregated to provide a total point value for the respective entryand wherein the received entries are evaluated for determining thoseentries with the point value which meet the winning criteria whencompared to the other entries.
 11. A system of conducting a pari-mutuelgame according to claim 1 wherein the contestants are teamsparticipating in a tournament and wherein the teams are seeded accordingto a predetermined criteria and wherein said teams are grouped into atleast two distinct groups based upon said seeding such that gamingparticipants select at least one team from a first group and a secondcontestant from a second group and wherein a winning wager is determinedbased upon the performance of said selected teams within saidtournament.
 12. A method of conducting a pari-mutuel wagering game forwagering on a contest having a plurality of contestants comprising:defining a period of time wherein wagers may be placed, said period oftime expiring prior to the initiation of said contest; providing adatabase having a roster of contestants, said contestants being groupedaccording to a predetermined criteria; providing a selection mechanismenabling participants to select contestants initially slated forcompeting in said contest; requiring the selection of at least onecontestant from at least two separate groups forming a selected team;verifying the eligibility of said team selected by said participant todetermine if said selected contestants are participating in said contestby utilizing said database and checking the status of the selectedcontestants eligibility for participation in said contest; alerting aparticipant that said team selected is an invalid selection if it isdetermined that a selected contestant is not eligible for participatingin said contest; providing said participants with the opportunity toplace a wager on said selected team if the selected team consists solelyof eligible contestants; receiving a selected team and an associatedwager from said participants to form a pool of wagers; allocating aportion of said pool of wagers to an operator of said game; allocatingthe remainder of said pool as a common pari-mutuel payout for payout ofwinning wagers; ranking said selected teams based upon the performanceof the selected contestants; determining winning wagers based upon therankings of said selected teams; and determining a payout for eachwinning wager based upon said ranking.
 13. The method of claim 12wherein said contest includes a plurality of contestants who arecompeting head to head and wherein each contestants performance,including those contestants who do not win the competition, are utilizedfor determining if a received wager is a winning wager and wherein saidcontestants are ranked utilizing a predetermined criteria prior to thecontest and wherein said contestants are grouped into at least twodistinct groups based upon said ranking such that gaming participantsselect at least one contestant from a first group and a secondcontestant from a second group and wherein a winning wager is determinedbased upon the performance of said selected contestants.
 14. The methodof claim 12 wherein said contestants include contestants participatingin the same sport but in different events at different locations. 15.The method of claim 12 wherein said contest comprises a race event andthe contestants are evaluated based on their final position the racingevent.
 16. The method of claim 12 wherein said contestants are evaluatedbased on performance characteristics not related to the outcome of thecontest.
 17. The method of claim 16 wherein said contestants includeathletes participating in team events wherein said athletes function atcertain positions on the team and wherein said team selection made bysaid participant includes athletes at different positions.
 18. Themethod of claim 17 wherein said athletes at are ranked according to apredetermined criteria and assigned groupings based on said rankings,and said selection of a team consists of selecting certain athletes ofdifferent positions to form a predetermined team of athletes at certainpositions wherein said groupings include athletes from the sameposition.
 19. The method of claim 12 wherein said contestants includeteams competing in a multi-round tournament with an eventual singlewinner and said teams are grouped into respective groups prior to theinitiation of the tournament and wherein a participant selects at leasta first team from a first group and a second team from a second groupthereby creating an entry for said pari-mutuel contest.
 20. The methodof claim 19 wherein said contestants are seeded prior to said tournamentand said grouping of contestants is based on said seedings wherein atleast three groups of seeded teams is established and wherein aparticipant is required to select at least one team from each of saidgroupings.